ID: Takata_lrd_5014

Mr. Kazuo Higuchi
TK Holdings, Inc.
601 13^th Street, NW, Suite 350 South
Washington, DC 20005




Dear Mr. Higuchi:

This responds to your letter seeking confirmation that under the low risk deployment test procedures for the 12-month-old child specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection, the compliance test is performed with the passenger seat in the full forward position only. As explained below, your understanding is correct.

On May 12, 2000, we established the advanced air bag requirements in FMVSS No. 208 to reduce the risk of serious air bag-induced injuries, particularly for children and small adults (65 FR 30680; May 12, 2000). Under S19 of FMVSS No. 208, vehicles certified to the advanced air bag requirements must comply with one of two options in order to provide protection for infants in rear facing child restraint systems: (1) air bag suppression, or (2) low risk deployment.

In a response to petitions for reconsideration of the advanced air bag requirements we specifically addressed and clarified the test procedure for the low risk deployment option. We explained that testing with a rear facing child restraint system under S20.4.1 is only conducted with the vehicle seat in the full forward position (see 68 FR 65179, 65182; November 19, 2003). We also noted that the associated indicant testing specified in S20.4.9 is conducted with the passenger seat in the full forward, middle, and full rearward position.

We recognize that the test procedure data sheet (Data sheet 22, TP-208-12) for the low risk deployment test has entries under S20.4.1 for all three seat positions. However, it is the regulatory text in FMVSS No. 208 that is controlling, not the test data sheet.

If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.7/27/05

ID: nht72-3.49

DATE: 09/05/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 26, 1972, on the subject of the conformity of the Volkswagen shoulder belt/knee bar system to the requirement of Standard No. 208. I apologize for our delay.

Your first question is whether the system would meet the requirements for a fully passive system under S4.1.2.1 and S4.1.3 if it were adjusted automatically and met the frontal and lateral crash protection requirements if S5.1 and S5.2 and if the vehicle conformed to Standard 216. Our reply is that a passive seat belt system of the type you describe would appear to satisfy the requirements of S4.1.2.1 and S4.1.3. It would also, however, be required to meet the requirements of S4.5.3. We cannot determine from your description whether the system is capable of fitting the range of occupants specified in S7.1, as required by S4.5.3.3.

Your second question concerns the possibility that the system could be used, with the shoulder belt either active or passive, to meet the second or third option for passenger cars manufactured between August 15, 1973, and August 15, 1975. You point to two variances between the Volkswagen system and the system contemplated by these options. S4.1.2.2 requires the installation of a Type 1 seat belt, whereas the Volkswagen system contains only a shoulder belt and a knee bar. S4.1.2.3 specifies either a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly, neither of which is found in the Volkswagen system. It is our opinion that these variances are such that an amendment of the standard would be required to permit the use of the Volkswagen system under either S4.1.2.2 or S4.1.2.3.

With reference to both the passive system discussed in your first question and a petition for rulemaking in connection with your second, we are particularly concerned with the actual crash performance of a single diagonal belt restraint as opposed to the Type 1 or Type 2 belts permitted in Standard No. 208. The injury criteria presently included in Standard No. 208 may not differentiate between restraint systems with good crash force distribution, such as the air cushion, and those such as the single diagonal belt which could poorly distribute loads on real human occupants. Accordingly, we would appreciate your sending us accident data describing experience with the European type single diagonal belt.

ID: 23451

Mr. Chris Tinto
Director, Technical & Regulatory Affairs
Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
1850 M Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036





Dear Mr. Tinto:

This responds to your letter concerning S9.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225). Standard No. 225 requires vehicles to have child restraint anchorage systems meeting configuration and other requirements of the standard. S9.1.1 specifies that the lower anchorages "consist of two bars" that, among other things, are not less than 25 mm, and not more than 40 mm in length ⁽¹⁾ 

You ask about forming the two lower anchorages by bending two bar segments from one continuous rod. Your letter is the second from you relating to such a method. Your first was a March 19, 2001, letter (see docket NHTSA-01-10302-2) asking about forming two bar segments that were approximately 35 mm long and that protruded 67 mm from the rest of the rod. In a July 30, 2001, letter (NHTSA-01-10302-1), we responded:

because the bars protrude 67 mm from the main portion of the rod and the part of the rod between the two bars would be in the seat bight and not visible to the consumer, two distinct bars are presented to consumers. A consumer is not likely to be confused about where a child restraint should be attached.We could have concluded otherwise had the bars not protruded 67 mm (or some other substantial distance) from the rest of the rod. For example, if they protruded only 10 mm from the rest of the rod, it would not be apparent that two bars are present. An anchorage system with such a design would not meet S9.1.1 of the standard.

You now ask about bar segments that protrude only about 15 mm from the rest of the rod. Further, the bar segments are gradually ramped from the main portion of the bar. You state:

the rod is bent such that there are 19 degree angled portions of the rod between the rear portion of the rod and the bar segments and 23 degree angled portions of the rod between the edges of the rod and the bar segments [Figure 2]. These angled portions of the rod create ramps, such that even if a parent incorrectly attaches the child restraint's soft anchors onto the rod instead of the bar segment, as the parent tightens the soft anchors, they will self correct and slide onto the bar segments (the 31.5 mm bar segments in Figure 1 and Figure 2).

Issue Presented

The issue you present is whether your lower anchorages consist of two bars meeting the configuration requirements of S9.1.1. One of the purposes of requiring the lower anchorages to consist of two bars and to meet configuration requirements is to standardize the design of the anchorage system, in part to avoid consumer confusion as to where a child restraint should be attached. If the bars were not distinct, consumers may attach a child restraint improperly, e.g., to a part of the seat that was not intended for anchoring a child restraint. The configuration requirements also ensure the universal attachment of all child restraints to anchorages in any vehicle.

Your design raises two questions. First is whether your anchorages consist of two bars, i.e., whether components extraneous to the bars are permitted, such as the straight portion of the rod between the bars. Our answer is no, in that only the bars can be visible to the consumer, and not the extraneous components. This is to standardize, to the extent possible, the design of anchorage systems.

The two bar segments of your current design protrude only 15 mm from the rest of the rod. This is a much shorter distance than the 67 mm protrusion of the design described in your March letter. We will evaluate whether the portion of the rod between the segments is visible when the vehicle seats are adjusted according to the specifications in S10(a) of Standard No. 225. S10(a) specifies that the seats are adjusted to their full rearward and full downward position, and the seat backs are adjusted to their most upright position. ⁽²⁾

The second question involves whether the two bar segments are "straight, horizontal and transverse" (S9.1.1(b)), and "are not less than 25 mm, but not more than 40 mm in length" (S9.1.1(c)). This question relates to the ramped angles forming the bars. Unlike your earlier design, the bars are not distinctly attached to segments that protrude 90 degrees from the rod. Instead, they are gradually ramped 19 and 23 degrees from the rod, and the apex of the protrusion is a straight, horizontal, portion that is 31.5 mm in length. You intend for the portion of the rod forming the apex to be the "bar" that meets the requirements of S9.1.1, and not the portion of the rod that angles from the straight part of the rod.

Your design is permitted. Standard No. 225 does not require the two bars to be mounted on segments that are parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. However, we are concerned that consumers might attach the restraint to the ramped portion of the bars. While you believe that a soft anchor will "self correct" and slide onto the straight part of the bar when the parent tightens the webbing attachment, some parents might not tighten the soft attachment as they should. Further, future child restraint anchor attachments might consist of "hard" attachments in addition to soft ones. For these reasons, we recommend that the vehicle be clearly marked as to where the child restraint attachment should be properly anchored.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.4/10/02





---

¹ The agency has received petitions for reconsideration asking that the maximum limit of 40 mm be deleted or increased to 50 mm. See Docket No. 98-3390, Notice 2. NHTSA's response to the petitions is pending.

² When the Static Force Application Device (SFAD) 2 is used in testing and cannot be attached to the lower anchorages with the seat back in this position, S10(a) specifies that the seat back is adjusted as recommended by the manufacturer in its instructions for attaching child restraints. If no instructions are provided, the seat back is adjusted to the position closest to the upright position that enables SFAD 2 to attach to the lower anchorages.

ID: 1984-2.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Nakaya Branch Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road Suite 462 Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds, to your letter dated January 20, 1984, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked whether the standard would allow "a secondary, redundant control placed in the rear seat area facilitating operation of the heating/ventilation and audio system functions by rear seat passengers." As explained below, the answer to your question is yes.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine whether your vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify your products in accordance with that determination. The following interpretation only represents the agency' s opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

Your letter indicates that controls for the heating and ventilation unit would be placed in the rear seating area. You stated that these controls would be "redundant" and "secondary." NHTSA assumes that there will be additional controls for the various functions of the units that are operable by and visible to the driver of the vehicle which meet all applicable requirements of Standard No. 101.

Section 5.2.1 requires identifications of any hand-operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 of that section to be visible to the driver. Listed in column 1 are "Heating and/or Air Conditioning Fan," and "Heating and Air Conditioning System."

You asked about illumination requirements in section 5.3 of FMVSS No. 101 that might apply: Again, this section is intended to regulate the controls and displays operable by and visible to the driver, not the controls located in the rear seating area.

In requiring properly located and effectively identified controls and displays under FMVSS No. 101, the agency sought to reduce the safety hazards caused by the diversion of the driver's attention from the road. Locating secondary controls for passengers in the rear seating area for the heating and ventilation system would not distract the driver from the operation of the motor vehicle. The identification and illumination requirements of sections 5.2 and 5.3 were intended to apply only to the controls operable by and visible to the driver.

You should be aware, however, that section 5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 101 provides that "the intensity of any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated shall also be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph." This section applies to all illumination in the passenger compartment that is dependent on activation of the headlights regardless of whether it shines upon a control display, to enable drivers to reduce the glare in the passenger compartment. Items such as radios and clocks which are not regulated by the location and identification requirements of FMVSS No. 101 are subject to the variable intensity requirements of section 5.3.3 if illuminated when, and only when, the headlights are activated. If the controls located in the rear seating area that operate the heating and ventilation unit are illuminated in this way, the standard requires that the light intensity for such controls must be continuously variable as described in section 5.3.3. You should further note that where you provide a control for the illumination intensity, section 5.1 of FMVSS No. 101 requires that it be operable by the driver, and its identificatian visible to the driver. We interpret this section to require at least one such control to be operable by and its identification visible to the driver. If a manufacturer separately meets the requirement of S5.1 by a properly located and identified control, additional controls that are added voluntarily by the manufacturer are not prohibited.

You indicated in your letter that Mazda is considering placing secondary controls for the audio system in the rear seating area. Controls and displays for audio systems are not regulated by FMVSS No. 101. The location and identification of these controls and displays are left to the discretion of the manufacturer. Once again, however, if the controls are illuminated when, and only when, the headlights are activated, then the same analysis discussed above applies. At least one control for the illumination intensity must be operable by the driver, with its identification visible to the driver.

In conclusion, FMVSS No. 101 does not prohibit placing the secondary controls for the heating and ventilation unit and audio system in the rear seating area. We would like to point out that there are other safety standards which may apply to your proposal that you should consider when you design these features for your automobiles, such as FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 20, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Interpretation of FMVSS 101-80 - Controls and Displays

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mazda, as well as many other manufacturers, offers a wide variety of vehicles in terms of available equipment. At the extreme end of this spectrum, Mazda endeavors to provide as many comfort and luxury features as possible for both the driver and passengers. One such feature currently under consideration is a secondary, redundant control placed in the rear seat area facilitating operation of the heating/ventilation and audio system functions by rear seat passengers.

Section 5.2.1 of FMVSS 101, however, states that, "The identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the control. The identification shall. . . be visible to the driver. . ." Mazda is concerned that this may preclude the introduction of secondary, redundant controls for rear seat passengers. Please comment on this issue. Also, please comment on any illumination requirements that might apply to this feature from Section 5.3 of the same standard.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

H. Nakaya Branch Manager HN/ab

ID: 86-4.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: William Shapiro

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh, NJ 07647

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

Thank you for your letter of May 5, 1986, requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of Standard No. 212, Windshield Retention, apply to a passenger car that is equipped with a driver-only air bag system. As explained below, such a vehicle must retain not less than 50 percent of the windshield periphery after being tested in accordance with Standard No. 212.

Standard No. 212 sets different windshield retention requirements for a vehicle depending on whether it is equipped with passive or manual restraints. S5.1 of the standard provides that vehicles equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 50 percent of the windshield periphery after crash testing. S5.2 of the standard provides that vehicle that are not equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 75 percent of the windshield periphery.

You noted that S4.1.3.4(b) of Standard No. 208 provides that, for purpose of calculating the number of passive restraint-equipped cars during the phase-in of passive restraints, a car with a driver-only, non-belt passive restraint will be counted as a vehicle complying with the passive restraint requirements of S4.1.2.1(a). Such a driver-only system can have a manual safety belt installed at the right front passenger position. You said that Volvo considers a vehicle with a driver-only, non-belt system to be a passive restraint vehicle and thus subject to the 50 percent windshield retention requirement of S5.1

As discussed in a July 5, 1977, Federal Register notice (42 FR 34288), one of the reasons the agency adopted the 50 percent retention requirement for passive restraint-equipped vehicles has because there could be contact between an air bag system and the windshield. In addition, there could be incidental contact between an air bag-restrained test dummy and the windshield. Because the same air bag-to-windshield and dummy-to-windshield contact is possible in a vehicle equipped with a driver-only air bag system, the agency believes that it is appropriate to apply the 50 percent retention requirement to a driver-only air bag system.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 5, 1986

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation FMVSS #212 Windshield Mounting

Dear Ms. Jones:

FMVSS #212 requires passive restraint equipped vehicles to retain not less than 50% of the portion of the windshield periphery on each side of the vehicle longitudinal centerline and vehicles not equipped with passive restraints to retain not less than 75% of the windshield periphery.

FMVSS #208 Section 4. 1.3.4(b) states, for purposes of calculating the numbers of cars manufactured under Section 4. 1.3. 1 .2, Section 4. 1.3.2.2, or Section 4.1.3.3.2 L; comply with Section 4.1.2.1. (first option - frontal/angular automatic protection system): "Each car whose driver's seating position with comply with the requirements of Section 4.1.2.1(a) by means not including any type or seat belt ad whose front right seating position is equipped with a Type 2 seat belt is counted as a vehicle conforming to Section 4,1.2.1.",

During the period 1987-89MY, NHTSA has classified cars with a non-belt passive restraint on the driver's side and a Type 2 seat belt on the passenger's side as "passive restraint vehicles".

Volvo interprets that the vehicles covered under Section 4.1.3.4(b) are passive restraint vehicles ad the requirements of FMVSS #212 for those vehicles are the ones that apply to passive restraint vehicles, i.e. , minimum 50% windshield periphery retention on each side of the vehicle longitudinal centerline.

We would appreciate your confirmation of that position as soon as possible.

If additional information is required on this matter, don't hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA Product Planning and Development

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs

ID: 1985-02.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/26/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Jerry D. Williams -- Senior Vice President, American Transportation Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 1/28/85 letter from Frank Berndt to Jerry D. Williams

TEXT:

Mr. Jerry D. Williams Senior Vice President American Transportation Corporation Highway 65 South Conway, Arkansas 72032

This responds to your February 13 1985 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting clarification of this agency's definition of a bus. A "bus" is defined in the definitions section of our motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 571.3) as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." You asked whether a vehicle's classification under our regulations is based on the seating capacity of the vehicle as designed, which may vary, or the actual seating capacity of the vehicle as manufactured.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles, as manufactured, comply with our safety standards. Thus, the agency uses the actual seating capacity of the vehicle as manufactured to determine the classification of the vehicle. NHTSA determines the seating capacity of a motor vehicle by identifying the number of designated seating positions in the vehicle. "Designated seating position" is defined in S571.3 as "any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats...." Consistent with this definition, we have also counted positions designed to accommodate wheelchairs in determining vehicle seating capacity for the determination of vehicle classification. Under our regulations, a vehicle having a total of more than 10 designated seating positions and wheelchair positions is a bus and a vehicle having a total of 10 or less positions is either a passenger car or a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV).

The vehicles you manufacture must be certified as meeting all the standards applicable to those vehicle types. For example, you must certify your MPV's as complying with all the safety standards applicable to MPV's. You may also voluntarily manufacture a MPV in compliance with the requirements of our school bus safety standards, as long as the vehicle continues to comply with our standards for MPV's.

In the materials you enclosed with your letter, you indicate that some of the vehicles you manufacture are equipped with wheelchair lifts. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a final rule recently published in the Federal Register (50 FR 12029; March 27, 1985) amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, to exclude doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and audible or visual alarms from the requirements of the standard.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

February 13, 1985

Re: Your Letter of January 28, 1985

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am in receipt of the above referenced letter and am hereby requesting additional clarification.

In your second paragraph, second sentence, you state, "Under our regulations, a vehicle which is designed to carry less than 11 persons would be considered a multipurpose passenger vehicle."

None of the buses which we manufacture were "designed" to carry less than 11 persons. Therefore, using this scenario we should be able to modify the seating plan to seat less than 11 persons and still meet the letter of the law.

Mr. Berndt, I am in no way trying to circumvent the law or its intent. I am simply trying to remain competitive. At the present time there are at least three of our competitors selling and delivering buses which have provisions for less than 11 passengers due to the fact that they are interpreting the law according to the aforementioned scenario.

I am enclosing copies of the above referenced letter along with my correspondence to you for your ready reference and, hopefully, early reply.

Sincerely,

Jerry D. Williams Senior Vice President Marketing

JDW:gd

Enclosures [1/28/85 letter from Frank Berndt to Jerry D. Williams omitted here.]

ID: nht88-3.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: ROBERT W. STUCHELL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 4-30-88, TO MR. VINSON FROM, ROBERT W. STUCHELL, OCC-1973

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 30, 1988, to Mr. Vinson of this Office as to the existence of Federal or State regulations "governing sale and/or use of lighted signs of any shape placed on the inside of the rear window of aftermarket cars. Suc h signs would not be connected with any new car purchase."

The Department of Transportation has no restriction on the sale of signs for use inside motor vehicles. Nor are there any Federal regulations that would prevent an owner from installing or using such signs. However, if the sign were of such a nature th at it is intended to be installed by a dealer or motor vehicle repair business, the installer must insure that its installation does not render inoperative in whole or in part any device installed on the vehicle pursuant to a safety standard. For exampl e, if the sign is installed on a passenger car equipped with a center highmounted stop lamp, the sign must not block the light from the lamp, or operate in a manner so as to cause confusion with it. Its installation must not affect the wiring of the oth er lighting equipment. Other safety problems such a sign might create are a partial blockage of view through a rear view mirror, or the creation of light on the rear window, resulting in glare in the rear view mirror.

We are not in a position to advise you as to the acceptability of the device under State law. You may wish to consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203 for advice.

ID: nht92-5.28

DATE: July 7, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/10/92 from Michael Love to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7401)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 10,1992, requesting concurrence by this Office in your interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the location of center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSL). Your letter was occasioned by mine of April 27, 1992, with respect to the design presented in your letter of April 3.

To summarize our earlier correspondence, Porsche wishes to install a CHMSL on the movable spoiler of its 911 Carrera, a configuration previously approved by this Office providing that all photometric and visibility requirements are met. However, S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108 requires that "If the lamp is mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches below the rear window on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars." Although Porsche's intended CHMSL meets this requirement with the spoiler in the extended position (when the car reaches 45 to 55 mph and slows to 9 to 12 mph), at other times, when the spoiler is lowered, the center lamp would be 7.5 inches below the window on the coupe, and 9.5 inches for the convertible. Because the CHMSL on the Carerra would not meet the locational requirements from a state of rest up to a minimum of 45 mph, we informed you that this design would not conform to Standard No. 108.

In your latest letter, you present the possibility of equipping the Porsche with two separate CHMSLs. The CHMSL discussed in your April letter, located at the trailing edge of the spoiler, would be activated when the spoiler had risen 35% from its at-rest position, and be deactivated at the time the spoiler lowers to 35%, from the at-rest position. The second CHMSL, located on the spoiler where it abuts the vehicle body and mounted at a complying height, would be activated when the vehicle is at rest, and when the spoiler is at heights less than 35% from the at-rest position, generally at times that the other CHMSL is deactivated. You expect that all photometric and height requirements of Standard No. 108 will be met in switching from one lamp to another while the spoiler is moving, though it might be necessary to have both lamps functioning together for a short period of time in order to fulfill photometric requirements.

A manufacturer's certification of compliance to the CHMSL requirements of Standard No. 108 is based upon the normal operation of motor vehicle equipment. The additional CHMSL you posit would appear to fulfill these requirements when the vehicle is at rest, and in low speed operation. Thus, for certification purposes, we regard this CHMSL as the one for which certification is supplied.

However, it appears that the spoiler in rising may affect the photometric conformance of the certification CHMSL. Under S5.3.1.1, when a part of a vehicle prevents a stop lamp from meeting its photometric output at any

applicable group of test points, any auxiliary stop lamp that meets these requirements may be provided. We interpret this as allowing the non-certification CHMSL to perform as a surrogate to the certification CHMSL at the point that conformance of the certification CHMSL is affected.

You have raised the possibility that it will be necessary to have both CHMSLs operating simultaneously for a short period of time in order to fulfill photometric requirements. While the meaning of this statement is not exactly clear, for purposes of this interpretation, it would appear to mean that simultaneous operation of both lamps might occur briefly when the rising spoiler masks the certification CHMSL at the same time the non-certification CHMSL is operating at a height below the minimum specified by Standard No. 108. Although in the past we have encouraged disabling of interior mounted CHMSLs when new ones are added to fixed spoilers, so that a vehicle will not be equipped with two permanent simultaneously operating CHMSLs, the situation here appears to differ. Under the circumstances outlined above, it does not appear that a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 would be created.

If our understanding is not correct, we would be willing to discuss the matter further.

ID: nht74-2.23

DATE: 09/24/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B Grefory; NHTSA

TO: Midland-Ross Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Midland-Ross' February 8, 1974, petition for an amendment of S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, to establish separate air reservoir volume requirements for several brake chamber types generally available in the air brake component market.

The standard presently requires air reservoir volumes to be a multiple of the vehicle's brake chamber volumes. Midland-Ross also requested that S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3 be amended to require that a reservoir withstand hydrostatic pressure five times greater than stated on its label without rupture, or permanent circumferential deformation exceeding one percent. The standard presently requires that an air reservoir withstand internal hydrostatic pressure of five times the vehicle compressor cutout pressure or 500 pounds, whichever is greater. The pecition also requests modifications of the trailer test rig, which were made in a recent amendment of the standard (39 FR 17563, May 17, 1974).

You suggested that our requirement for air reservoir volume as a multiple of brake chamber volume will encourage installation of smaller equipment and thereby create a safety problem. We cannot agree, in view of the standard's stopping distance requirements which in effect mandate the installation of high performance components. Indications to date are that manufacturers have in fact not reduced brake chamber volumes. A certain degree of chamber stroke standardization may occur, which the NHTSA views as favorable. For these reasons your request is denied.

With regard to the air reservoir pressure requirements of S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3, you argued that a reservoir manufacturer is unable to establish the required strength of his product because he cannot control the compressor cutout pressure of the vehicle on which the reservoir is installed. It should be understood that the standard is not an equipment standard with which Midland-Ross must comply, but a vehicle standard with which the vehicle manufacturer must comply. We have determined that the reservoir should be designed to manage the pressures to which it might be exposed on the vehicle on which it is installed. The vehicle manufacturer is able to establish a compressor cutout pressure (on powered vehicles, and, based on that value, order the appropriate reservoir to meet the requirement. It is evident that commercial considerations will standard compressor cutout pressures on reasonable range of available reservoir strengths. Midland-Ross as a manufacturer of reservoirs is free to establish a range of reservoir strenghts, and label the reservoirs as described in your petition. For the reasons cited, however, your petition to mandate this is denied.

We agree the requirement that a reservoir "withstand" a certain pressure can be further specified, and we are considering a proposal to do this in the future.

At this time the NHTSA has adopted the SAE Standard No. J10a, which specifies that there be no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation exceeding one percent.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD 121 DOCKET 73-13 NOTICE #3

BY POWER CONTROLS DIVISION MIDLAND-ROSS CORPORATION

M. J. Denholm Director of Engineering

February 8, 1974

Midland-Ross regrets to find that several of the proposals issued under Notice 1 of Docket 73-13 have not been incorporated in the rule issued under Notice 3 of the Docket.

The purpose of this petition is to request reconsideration of outstanding petitions and comments not yet resolved or acted upon from previous notices. In addition, we wish to offer additional information to supplement our comments on Docket 70-16 and 17, Notice 3, and the petition for reconsideration of Docket 70-17, Notice 4.

Taking the sections as they appear in FMVSS 121 as amended by Docket 73-13, Notice 3, we ask for your consideration of the following:

S5.1.2.1

S5.2.1.2

On March 23, 1972, we petitioned for consideration of this section of Docket 70-16 and 70-17, Notice 3.

Quote: "The combined volume of all service brake chambers at maximum travel of the pistons or diaphragms" requires definition in that volume can be measured in more than one way resulting in significant variation in result. For example: Displacement determined by pressurizing a chamber hydrostatically to 5 psig would result in approximately 10% less volume as compared to that indicated when the same chamber is pressurized to 100 psig hydrostatically. The hydrostatic pressure would be applied using an incompressable fluid; the volume of fluid displaced being the measure of the chamber volume. We recommend the standard be revised to read as follows:

'S5.1.2.1 . . .the combined volume of all service brake chambers at maximum travel of the pistons or diaphragms when measured with 5 psig applied to the chamber.' This will eliminate the possibility of a dual standard when determining compliance."

On August 14, 1973, we petitioned again for reconsideration of this section of Docket 70-17, Notice 4; and again on July 11, 1973, against Docket 73-13, Notice 1.

Quote: "The requirement under both these sections is restrictive and not necessarily in the public interest. For example, Midland-Ross Type 30 service chambers provide 2.75 inch stroke where units of other manufacturers are as low as 2.5 inch. The long stroke provides a desirable margin for poor brake adjustment. We believe this advantage will render our product non-competitive. To become competitive a reduction in stroke, with the attendant reduction in reservoir capacity requirement will be necessary. We feel, in light of recent experience with designs to meet FMVSS, 121, Notice 4, that this is arbitrary and an unnecessarily expensive retrograde step, caused by the wording of this section. In addition, chamber displacement varies dependent upon the applied pressure.

"This is caused by ballooning of diaphragms as pressure is increased. It should be noted that a three or four axle rigid truck would require significantly larger reservoirs under this rule than would a two-axle tractor designed to tow two or three trailers. Taking into account these three factors, it is recommended that S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2 be reworded as follows:

'S5.1.2.1 The combined volume of all service reservoirs and supply reservoirs shall be at least the value obtained by the following product: Buses, and tractors and trailers designed to tow air-braked vehicles:

(12) x (115%) x (Combined volume of all service brake chambers)

Trucks not designed to tow other air-braked vehicles: (8) x (115%) x (Combined volume of all service brake chambers)

The combined volume of all service brake chambers is that volume obtained at maximum travel of the pistons or diaphragms with 100 psi hydrostatic pressure applied to the chambers with the brakes adjusted as specified by the vehicle manufacturer for new, unburnished brakes.

'S5.2.1.2 The total service reservoir volume shall be at least the value obtained by the following product: (8) x (115%) x (Combined volume of all service brake chambers)

The combined volume of all service brake chambers is that volume obtained at maximum travel of the pistons or diaphragms with 100 psi hydrostatic pressure applied to the chambers with the brakes adjusted as specified by the vehicle manufacturer for new, unburnished brakes."

No action has resulted from any of these petitions. We feel both arguments are still valid. We would like to add additional argument to that furnished on August 14, 1973, as follows:

An optional method of determining reservoir volume would consist of using an established minimum working volume for each standard size of service chamber. The minimum working volume would then be used to compute the reservoir requirement in the manner stated in the standard. Using this approach, the need for the changes recommended on March 23, 1972, would be eliminated also. We therefore recommend the S5.1.2.1 be reworded as follows: S5.1.2.1 The combined volume of all service reservoirs and supply reservoirs shall be determined by adding the volumes specified in Table V, Column 1 for each air-operated service brake actuator.

S.5.2.1.2 shall read:

S5.2.1.2 Total service reservoir volume shall be determined by adding the volumes specified in Table V, Column 2 for each air operated service brake actuator.

TABLE V Reservoir Volume Required Per Actuator * Column 1 * Column 2 Actuator Trucks-Buses Trailers Type 9 Diaphragm 240 cubic inches 160 cubic inches Type 12 Diaphragm 300 cubic inches 200 cubic inches Type 16 Diaphragm 528 cubic inches 352 cubic inches Type 20 Diaphragm 612 cubic inches 408 cubic inches Type 24 Diaphragm 732 cubic inches 488 cubic inches Type 30 Diaphragm 1056 cubic inches 704 cubic inches Type 36 Diaphragm 1464 cubic inches 976 cubic inches

*Piston or Rolling 12 x volume at max. 8 x volume at max.

Diaphragm working stroke working stroke

The above revisions to S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2 are requested due to the variation in design of diaphragm type service brake chambers. These chambers are of generally similar construction, but because of manufacturing tolerances and slight differences in stroke length, their maximum volumes are different by a few percentage points. The current reservoir volume requirement based on maximum displacement encourages the use of small volume chambers (to reduce required reservoir volumes). In use, however, these small volume chambers provide less reserve than larger displacement units. This is true because the larger displacement units generally have slightly longer operating strokes. This additional stroke is a safety advantage in event that brake drums expand from heat buildup or shoes are allowed to wear without brake readjustment.

The chamber volume differences caused by variations in maximum stroke length are not significant to a vehicle in normal operation. This is because either chamber design would require the same amount of air to operate a properly adjusted brake; either unit when stroked to the same distance (any value short of maximum stroke; would displace nearly the same volume of air. Chamber volume requirements per brake application would be the same for either chamber design unless the stroke exceeded the maximum stroke length of the short stroke chamber. In that case, (abnormal situation) the long stroke chamber would require more air than a short stroke unit but would produce brake torque to stop the vehicle. The short stroke unit would be stopped internally without producing brake torque.

If S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2 are not revised, market pressure will force redesign of long stroke chambers to limit stroke (and maximum volume). This could be carried to an extreme whereby the redesigned chambers would have even shorter strokes than current chambers. This type unit would then have economic advantages that would encourage their use; but they would actually be inferior to current chambers from a safety point of view.

The chamber volumes proposed in Table V were arrived at by applying the current requirement of 12 times chamber volume at maximum stroke (eight times for trailers) to the maximum volume of the truck industry's most common air brake chamber. These values do not represent a change in the spirit of the law, only in its detail. The original method of determining reservoir volume would be retained for piston actuators or other devices whose stroke and displacement have not become standardized in the industry.

S5.1.2.2

S5.2.1.3

On March 23, 1972, we petitioned for reconsideration of both of these sections of Docket 70-16 and 70-17, Notice 3.

Quote: "The requirement that the reservoirs under both of these sections should 'withstand' an internal hydrostatic pressure is nondefinitive and open to interpretation. In addition, manufacturers of air brake reservoirs are not necessarily in a position to determine what the cutout pressure of the compressor will be for a particular reservoir application prior to design and development of the reservoir as required under Paragraph S5.1.2.2. In addition, there is a significant inconsistency between the requirements for reservoir strength on a truck or bus and those for reservoirs used on a trailer as both reservoirs on a combination vehicle would be pressurized by the same compressor to the same pressure levels. It would appear reasonable, in the interest of safety, to adopt a common standard. It would also appear to be advisable to use a standard which is both proven and perfectly acceptable based on long periods of experience. It is therefore recommended that Paragraphs S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3 be revised as follows:

'Each reservoir shall be capable of accepting a hydrostatic pressure of not less than five times the reservoir rated working pressure for a minimum of one minute. When subjected to this pressure for this time period there shall be no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation exceeding 1%. The reservoirs meeting this requirement must be permanently identified for rated working pressure."

On August 14, 1973, we again petitioned for reconsideration of these sections of Docket 70-17, Notice 3. Comments were also made on Docket 73-13, Notice 1.

Quote: "The requirement that the reservoirs under both of these sections should withstand an internal hydrostatic pressure is nondefinitive and open to interpretation. In addition manufacturers of air brake reservoirs are not necessarily in a position to determine what the cutout pressure of the compressor will be for a particular reservoir application prior to design and development of the reservoir as required under Paragraph S5.1.2.2. In addition, there is a significant inconsistency between the requirements for reservoir strength on a truck or bus and those for reservoirs used on a trailer. Both reservoirs on a combination vehicle would be pressurized by the same compressor to essentially the same pressure levels. It would appear reasonable, in the interest of safety, to adopt a common standard. It would also appear to be advisable to use a standard which is both proven and perfectly acceptable based on long periods of experience. It is therefore recommended that Paragraphs S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3 be revised as follows:

'Each reservoir shall be capable of accepting a hydrostatic pressure of not less than five times the reservoir rated working pressure for a minimum of one minute. When subjected to this pressure for this time period, there shall be no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation exceeding 1%. The reservoirs meeting this requirement must be permanently identified for rated working pressure.'

Note: This recommendation reflects the current SAE Standard Practice (SAE J10b) in regard to reservoir certification and therefore should provide clarification without creating unnecessary hardships."

An additional point which was not specifically made in the two petitions quoted from relates to manufacturing practice and product application.

As a major reservoir manufacturer, Midland-Ross produces all reservoirs for air-braked vehicles in one of three diameters. Each diameter is engineered from differing material thicknesses to withstand a predetermined working pressure. Usually this is 150 psi. When reservoirs are supplied to the industry we have no knowledge of the compressor cutout pressure. The compressor cutout pressure is usually adjustable in service. A situation over which the reservoir manufacturer has no control. By establishing a maximum rated working pressure for the reservoir to be marked on the unit, the user then has direct knowledge of the limit to which the compressor cutout pressure can be safely adjusted. We feel that adopting this method would result in better understanding on the part of the user as this has been the standard used historically. It would eliminate the need to re-educate operators and provide a sounder basis for economic reliable manufacture and application of air brake reservoirs.

S5.3.3

S5.3.4

On March 23, 1972 we pointed out in our petition for reconsideration the inadequacies of the test standard shown in Docket 70-16 and 70-16, Notice 3, Figure 1. Partial response to this petition was exhibited in Docket 73-13, Notice 1, S6.1.12.

Docket 73-13, Notice 3, essentially returns to 70-17, Notice 3 level, thus effectively ignoring our original petition and also our comments on Docket 73-13, Notice 1, submitted to the Administration on July 11, 1973.

We ask for consideration of our updated proposal as follows:

S5.3.3 Brake actuation time. With an initial service reservoir system air pressure of 100 psi, the air pressure in each brake chamber shall reach 60 psi in not more than 0.25 second measured from the first movement of the service brake control. A vehicle designed to tow a vehicle equipped with air brakes shall be capable of meeting the above actuation time requirement with a 50-cubic-inch test reservoir connected to the control line coupler. A trailer shall meet the above requirement with its brake system connected to a trailer timing test rig as shown in Fig. 1 which meets the requirements of S5.3.3.1 and S5.3.3.2.

S5.3.3.1 The following should be added:

"The trailer test rig shown in Fig. 1 shall be constructed such that the pressure in a 50 cubic inch test volume connected to the control coupling is raised from zero to 60 psi in .063 second minimum when tested on the test rig. Time shall be measured from the first mechanical movement of the device controlling air flow to the control coupling."

S5.3.3.2 The following should be added:

"The trailer test rig shown in Figure 1 shall be constructed such that the pressure in a 50 cubic inch test volume connected to the control coupling is exhausted from 95 to 5 psi in .220 second minimum when tested on the test rig. Time shall be measured from the first mechanical movement of the device controlling air flow from the control coupling.

Figure 1 should be revised as shown:

(Graphics omitted)

S5.3.4 Brake release time. With an initial brake chamber air pressure of 95 psi, the air pressure in each brake chamber shall fall to 5 psi in not more than 0.50 second measured from the first movement of the service brake control. A vehicle designed to tow another vehicle equipped with air brakes shall be capable of meeting the above release time requirement with a 50-cubic inch test reservoir connected to the control line coupling. A trailer shall meet the above release time requirement with its brake system connected to the test rig shown in Fig. 1 and which meets the requirements of S5.3.3.1 and S5.3.3.2.

The above changes to Section S5.3.3 and Figure 1, and additions to S5.3.3.1 and S5.3.3.2 are recommended in an effort to more completely define the TRAILER TEST RIG. Until this rig is defined, uniform timing will not exist on trailers built to FMVSS 121. The original Figure 1 was designed to duplicate a tractor. It did this but as a test instrument it is inadequately defined. The air delivery performance of this device (as well as the tractors it was modeled from) will vary significantly. This is unacceptable when proof of vehicle compliance to the standard depends upon tests made with this unit. The proposed Figure 1 is a black box with narrowly defined performance characteristics. Devices built to this requirement will undoubtedly exhibit performance variations when tested against one another, but their level of consistency will far exceed that obtained by a unit in the standard which is only partly defined.

ID: nht95-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 22, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Randal Busick -- President, Vehicle Science Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/2/95 LETTER FROM RANDAL K. BUSICK TO MARY VERSAILLES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Busick:

This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, providing further information in response to concerns raised in a January 5, 1995, letter from our office. Our January 5 letter raised concerns about a device labeled "Slider Bar" in the drawing enclosed with a previous letter from your company. As described in your letter, the "Slider Bar" is a bar near the floor of the vehicle that allows the seat belt to be moved to facilitate ingress and egress from the rear seats. "The forward (hooked) end of the s lider bar is the point at which the belt always comes to rest when in use (buckled)." Your February 2 letter provides further information about and pictures depicting the "Slider Bar." You asked if this information resolved the concerns raised by agency staff.

The drawing provided with your original letter shows the "Slider Bar" adjacent to the seat. Agency staff were concerned that this design would result in the pelvic portion of the belt lying across a person's thighs, rather than on the pelvis. The pictu res accompanying your February 2 letter show that the "Slider Bar" is actually rearward of the seat and that this concern is not warranted. Therefore, we agree that, if all requirements of Standards Nos. 208, 209, and 210 are met, this design would not b e a problem.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.